.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Attorney, is it the vote by members present or by the quorum?

By members present, okay then.

Oh good.

The motion did pass.

Thank you.

Okay.

We will now proceed to the discussion calendar.

Item number three is the two rivers trail phase three.

Is there a staff presentation?

Good evening.

I'd like to thank the commissioners for allowing me to present on this project.

My name is Adam Randolph.

I'm a senior engineer with the Public Works Department.

I am the project manager for the two rivers trail project.

I'll say multiple phases of the two rivers trail project.

Tonight specifically we're presenting on the phase three.

So as a general overview of the overall project, the two rivers trail is part of the city's

plan to create a continuous riverside trail network.

Along the southern fork of the American River, we already have a trail present from

Tuscornia Park up to state route 160.

We continued another segment of that trail through the eastern side of Sutter's Landing

Park around 2016-ish.

And are currently under construction on yet another segment east of Sutter's Landing

Park which should most likely complete construction next year.

Now we are trying to fill all the gaps.

So our phase three project, let me step back, our phase three project, currently what we're

really working on is an alternative route analysis.

Basically looking at the best way to fill all those gaps that are going to be left in the

trail.

We are kicking off our public engagement process which you'll get here about the survey that

we're currently holding right now looking for some more public input.

After that process is done, we're going to start preliminary engineering on a few of

those different alternatives, a few of those gap closures, and then enter into our environmental

clearance and permitting.

So looking at the phase three project overall, we have it broken into four segments.

The first is what we're calling the east crossing.

This is really the final gap between 28th Street and 8th Street that we're trying to close.

And what this is is a crossing of Union Pacific Railroad that was originally part of our

phase two project.

We had to pause it until or to this project because there were just some immovable roadblocks

with Union Pacific that are actually finally getting cleared up and we're showing very good

progress on.

Looking at the western portion of the project, we have our segment A which we're calling

our landfill loop.

segment B is yet another rail crossing which I'll touch on in a second.

And segment C is looking at how to close the gap between the existing phase one trail on

the west side of state route 160 and our phase two, three, four trail on the east side of

state route 160.

Looking back to the western rail crossing, we have looked at that.

We are trying, we're working through alternatives on that but what we have discovered and what

we know of the railroad is essentially they will only approve, well, they have kind of a

hierarchy of approval or disapproval.

If there is potential to grade separate a trail or a roadway crossing their tracks specifically

to go over their tracks, that is the only option they'll consider.

In this case, we do have a feasible way to go over the tracks.

So kind of de facto our crossing of the railroad for this project is going to be looking at

some type of overhead alternative.

Or the segment or for the connections to state route 160, we're looking at a few different

options.

One, just to acknowledge first and foremost, our preferred option for everything is water

side.

We want to have something that crosses in front of the state route 160 bridges.

We also acknowledge that that is a very expensive and long term project that's going to require

us to work inside of a waterway that's going to require some very expensive structures

to be built in front of or in the proximity of a cal-trans structure that is in need of

replacement.

So it's something that's a long term solution.

It's not really a short term solution.

So in the interim we are looking at two different short term solutions.

One being the what we're labeling is alternative one, which is looking at a connection through

the river district down Sproul Avenue or Bazzler Avenue, some type of signal improvement

across 16th and down Sproul Avenue.

The appeal of this being that it ties into the class four that we recently built on 12th

street and sun beam and creates a kind of ready made tie-in to the west side of state

route 160.

The other alternative that we're considering is what we're calling alternative two, following

down the Levymore and then coming essentially down the embankment for 160 crossing at the

Richard's Boulevard intersection and coming back up to connect into 160 on the east side.

The challenge with this particular option is that Richard's boat, well, a few challenges.

To get down to Richard's Boulevard takes again some fairly expensive structures, works,

and retaining walls would have to be built, fair amount of trees would have to be removed.

And then functionally the intersection at Richard's Boulevard currently is a junction

of a highway, three different streets and light rail.

If we put trail traffic across that intersection as well, that intersection is going to break

down very quickly.

So we are definitely looking at this, we like this alternative, but we acknowledge that

in trying to make this work we're going to have to make sure the intersection continues

to function.

And that may be a challenge with this alternative.

Looking at our landfill loop, so Sutter's Landing Park currently there is a trail that

ends at 28th Street, which is on the east side of your screen or the right side of your

screen.

Again, acknowledging that ultimately we want a riverfront trail, we don't have and are

not able to get property rights at this time to cross Bell Marine or to cross the property

next door to it.

So what we're looking at is an alternative going down a street where we have existing rights

and everywhere where you see alternatives listed on here are areas where the city has

rights and the ability to build.

Not that there aren't challenges to building on a landfill, but at least we have the property

rights.

So looking at these alternatives, our alternative one for us, that's the alternative

one for us, is the most direct route that we can build.

There's an existing access maintenance road going along that alternative that we could

literally put a trail down directly on top of it easily meets grades.

I should add that what we're looking at on here right now is Union Pacific is going

to be a fairly long duration negotiation to get done.

So that is likely to be done as a phase four project, not as part of this project.

We're doing the initial work, the footwork to scope it.

We're going to be chasing grants to go after that additional gap closure, but in this area

what we're trying to do right now is essentially build a scenic loop through the park that can

easily tie into the future trail crossing that we're going to put in.

So alternative one is looking at essentially following the existing maintenance roads

out there.

We would follow the blue line up and follow the red line back down and into a street.

Alternative two and all of these are kind of along the same theme.

Alternative two is a less direct route.

It goes across kind of an open grassy area.

I'll call it the more scenic route that can be built out there.

It's also the more challenging route to build out there because it's going on, well, as

much as you can call it Virgin Land in a landfill, that's what it's going on top of.

Which means that nothing is compacted.

There's a lot of potential for ground to shift.

There's a lot higher maintenance burden on the trail.

But there's also a much more open canvas out there to things that can potentially be done.

Alternative three, kind of along the lines of alternative two is a relatively direct route.

It's using existing maintenance roads out there for the alignment.

I'll say the biggest downside I would give to this alternative is that if you look on the

bottom of the screen there, that's a big smud substation.

It's sharing the road in front of that substation for a longer length than any other area.

So there's more likely to be conflicts with maintenance vehicles, that type of thing with

a sole alternative.

Going to hand it over to Sarah Modesty to talk about her outreach.

Hello.

We're working with the team to help identify these alternatives from the public's perspective.

It's really important to try to tap into the ideas of the ultimate users and folks who

have been spending a lot of time at area already.

We have started an online survey.

It's posted on the city's two rivers trail webpage.

As Adam mentioned, there's many phases of this project and we've consolidated them all

into a single two rivers trail page to keep all the history and activities in a single

location which we hope will help tell the story better of the two rivers trail.

So you can see on the website, backslash, two rivers trail.

There's also a dedicated phone number and email address for folks who have questions or concerns.

We're happy to chat with anyone.

On that website, we currently have an online survey.

You'll see the same maps that Adam just went through there as you take the survey to

help you think about your preferred alternatives.

We started with distribution on Tuesday with the transportation planning.

We also have a newsletter that went out and we know these are dedicated folks because

we got 15 email responses within a couple hours.

So Gold Star, it's an email readers.

We'll be sending out the link to council offices, P-Bids and neighborhood groups and obviously

interest groups of which there are many.

So to try to really broaden the reach, so we encourage you to take the survey, send

it out to folks that you think would also be interested in sharing their feedback.

So that'll be up for the next couple weeks.

You can actually scan the QR code there and get right to the webpage as well or as I mentioned

visit it, backslash, two rivers trail.

So those survey findings will really help inform the design team on kind of the public's

perspective as Adam said, there are benefits and challenges with each of the different

alignments but all kind of work together to solve the connectivity that the city's been

working towards.

And I'll go through the anticipated timeline as well.

As you know, we're working on the feasibility study and preliminary engineering.

That's where the public outreach and community survey comes into effect as well.

Open this winter and all the way into next fall, there will be environmental technical

studies and permitting work will be underway and that will roll directly into final design.

We anticipate that being until spring 2026 and then the next likely step is construction

and that's funding dependent.

So I know the team is going to be working on securing grant funding and the like so

that we can see this ultimate design into reality.

So that's our presentation today.

If you have questions, we're very happy to answer them.

Our feedback.

Thank you.

Are there any members, clerk?

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speakers list for this item.

Thank you.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

Commissioner Littaker?

Thanks.

I just have a question.

You've got those three alternatives going through the base that was but here we go.

Thank you.

And it looks like they're all loops.

Is that right?

So the intention here is with this project we are building the trail up to the railroad

essentially knowing that the railroad is going to come in a future phase.

So to make it a usable trail we're making or we're doing a loop just so it's kind of a

scenic loop through the park up until we can get that union Pacific crossing in place.

Great.

Thank you.

The other concern that I had is alleviated by the fact that it's a loop was it connects

to all your other options to get across the rail which they all do.

And I will say we are basically at the spaghetti on paper stage right now.

Ultimately we're going to make sure that yes everything is going to connect together so

that our future alternatives all work nicely together.

Thank you.

Commissioner Moore.

Thank you for the presentation.

I have a couple of questions.

So on this pertaining to these alternatives as well the alternative to the yellow when

you're talking about that being kind of more like the canvas option of there being more

potential for other things.

Would is the city currently looking at maybe park enhancements or beautification or is

that just kind of the potential of putting something more in the middle of that area?

So I will say there are interested parties who are looking at other enhancements that

are possible not actually any city staff at this point although it is a possibility in the

future.

There are a lot of challenges in this area and that this is all a cap landfill that

we're looking at in Sutter's Landing Park.

So there's a lot of input this required on what's allowed to be put out there and ultimately

it's actually the county health department that gets to say what we can and can't do.

That said I have heard people bantering about ideas.

Can we bring a lot of fill in?

Is there any way that we can get trees planted out there?

What else can we do?

Anything that is done ultimately, let me take a step back and say the parcel that that yellow

line is going across.

It has, I wish I remember the name of the easement but it's basically it cannot be used for anything

other than open space.

The only improvement that can really be put across it is something like a trail.

Okay, so we can't do a sports field out there.

We can't do a like a park gym type of set up or anything like that.

You could do like a more natured bit like tree plants.

You could do something like that.

We could do some type of informational signs if we want to point out features of the nature

out there.

The riparian habitat that's out there, things to keep an eye out for.

Let everybody know what the Yippinkai Odies are doing.

Which there's a lot of those by the way.

Thank you.

And then the other question I had for segment B, when you say that the other options that

are not the under crossing of 160, that those are going to be done in the interim.

Are you saying that you are going to pursue the waterfront crossing and that's just going

to come at a much later time.

Or is that, are we looking at alternatives?

Are you referring to this slide with the waterfront crossing?

Yeah.

Are you saying that the orange line is going to happen and the other ones are just the

short term?

I am going to say the orange line is what we all want to happen.

I'm not going to promise anything.

Again, the challenge there is that the state understands that state route 160 bridge right

there is not in good condition.

I don't know of any active projects that you have right now to replace it or rehab it,

but we keep hearing rumors about it.

So there's a lot of hesitancy and putting a lot of money into a project going in front

of that bridge that would get wiped out if that bridge got replaced.

That said, if the state does replace those bridges, we're absolutely pushing for getting

a trail crossing through there at the same time.

If the state says we're not replacing those bridges for 50 years, we're going to look

into some kind of grant they can get us a trail in front of those bridges.

We're just in a little bit of a unknown territory right now.

I see.

Okay.

And then the two comments I have are with option or alternative one of this.

I myself have gotten confused taking sunbeam towards the river and then ended up going left

because wasn't sure where it connected.

Maybe I just overlooked very apparent signs.

I think if you do go with the alt one because it's so much more removed, just a lot more

way finding to help people traverse that.

And then I don't know that I saw it on the presentation, but in the agenda items, there

was a number of options for getting, I think, over the rail line where those start.

But what a couple of them included a tunnel and I just wanted to voice, I think, maybe concerned

with any kind of tunnel option, just out of people who would use that trail in the evening

for transportation or commuting.

I just feel like tunnels can be a little bit challenging in terms of personal safety

wise to make that an encouraging place to use.

So anything that can be above ground would be, I think, preferred in my opinion.

But thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Littaker?

Thank you, Chair.

And thanks for the presentation.

I forgot to say that first time.

So yeah, on the crossing of the rail options, I can't believe I'm seeing this, but I do

point it out that that one intersection is kind of a nightmare.

It's a nightmare and it's just not hospitable to families or people on bicycles.

I mean, that's just a long, dangerous way to go around just to get right over there.

And so I kind of like your one, also because once you do build the orange overpass, now

you've got this alternate route which is more like a network so people who aren't necessarily

going the orange way can get where they're going.

So I kind of like the green route because it's calmer, safer, and I can envision families

on bikes traversing that route safely and quietly without disturbing traffic and there's

a traffic disturbing them.

Usually, I like the river routes, so I'm surprised that my comments are just going to say that.

I think we feel the same.

Commissioner Harris?

I felt exactly the same way as somebody who comes from down 160 or on the light rail

from North Sacramento.

It's just not a safe place.

It is a terrible intersection.

It feels very uncomfortable locations.

Don't put people on bicycles where they're at harm's way.

And I just encourage, if you do any modeling that you consider much higher speeds than what

are listed, since it is a freeway ending at that spot.

So it doesn't matter.

I think it's like a 35, 40 zone there, but I regularly see people coming out at like 55

miles an hour is around that corner, which is pretty terrifying if you're on a bicycle.

So I actually think alternative one is going to be a great network and has some real potential

to expand opportunities for bicycling.

So I think it's a really great solution given looking for some creative options.

So thank you for the presentation of the thought.

Thank you.

I agree with these two commissioners.

Avoid anything crossing Richard's Boulevard at that intersection.

It's too complicated and too complex and too many crazy drivers.

And I think on the slide where the yellow route went over the landfill on that option.

And I think you said that that if that yellow trail could be susceptible to changes in the

future because of ground settling.

Correct?

Correct.

Or whatever's going on down there.

I would eliminate that one too.

I mean why set yourself up for potential issues in the future?

Build a trail that will last longer and not one that would be affected by the.

That's what's going on underneath.

Thank you.

Anything else?

This is a review and comment.

So thank you.

There's no vote required.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Thank you.

We are now moving on to item number four.

State Design Standards Amendment.

And is there a staff presentation?

Sorry.

There is.

There is.

There is.

There is.

There is.

There is.

You ready?

Yes.

All right.

Good evening commissioners.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Cassandra Cortez.

And I'm a transportation planner with the city of Sacramento.

Today I will be providing an overview about this effort and at the end I will ask commissioners

to provide comments on the values and needs to inform the street design standards amendment.

So to start off I will begin discussing the background of the street design standards

amendment and overall why city staff is seeking to amend the street design standards.

So starting off what are we here to talk about and what are the street design standards.

So the city street design standards are section 15 of the city's design and procedures manual

and there are many topics within the design and procedures manual including how we design

streets within Sacramento.

And the street design standards is 50 pages of standards that includes information for

any street that is going through a redesign or is new construction within Sacramento.

So this applies to any development project every major capital improvement project or

every traffic investigation is based on these standards.

So essentially I'd like you all to think that these are the blueprint that is used both

internally and externally when a project is happening within the city.

So as examples of street design standard amendment topics this effort will be looking into

what are the appropriate widths for sidewalks and street tree buffer widths to support people

walking and our urban canopy goals as well as what is the appropriate widths for bike

way types such as a separated bike way or bike lane buffer width.

And this effort will also be looking into the appropriate widths for general purpose

travel lanes and many more topics.

So this is a list of the project topics that the street design standards amendment will

be considering and this list is directly from our website so there's no need to look

over every single bullet point now that I want to give you all an overview.

But overall this effort is going to be looking at designs that are related to people walking,

people biking, people taking transit and overall supporting the urban canopy to support

the city's goals around climate change, mobility and the urban canopy.

So once completed the amended street design standards will be it's not going to be an

effort to change infrastructure in any specific locations.

The street design standards will provide design guidelines to better meet the city's goals

around climate and mobility for future projects that haven't received their entitlements yet.

So any infrastructure at a singular location will not be changed until there's a project

there and until there's funding there.

So to give an overview of why this effort is important and why city staff is undertaking

this effort, there are two policy documents that are directing city staff to complete this

work.

The first is our vision zero action plan which direct city staff to reflect complete

streets and designs with crash reduction factors.

And the second is our climate action adaptation plan which direct city staff to update the standards

to provide options for folks to travel on complete streets and low stress streets that

are designed for all ages and abilities for folks walking, biking and taking transit.

And if the vision zero action plan and the climate action adaptation plan is giving staff

direction, the 2040 general plan is providing context on how to amend the street design standards.

So the first bullet point there is user prioritization.

So to prioritize people walking followed by people biking or taking transit.

And the second is to prioritize comfort and travel time for people walking, biking

and taking transit.

And the third direction is to expand our tree canopy, along our streets to help achieve

the city's goals around tree canopy.

So to give an overview again of why specifically city staff is undertaking this effort, the

first reason is because people are dying and being seriously injured on Sacramento

streets.

This bar chart shows traffic fatalities in California and several cities including Sacramento

and red here.

And Sacramento continuously ranks as one of the highest cities with the highest number

of traffic fatalities compared to other cities and overall the state of California.

And we know there are two ways to improve safety on our streets.

One is through thoughtful enforcement and the other is through thoughtful engineering.

So the street design standards amendments will include designs with proven safety countermeasures

and an effort to reduce fatalities and severe injuries.

The second reason is climate change.

Climate change will have an impact on Sacramento and our infrastructure such as severe storms

or extreme heat days.

And the majority of Sacramento's greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation sources.

57% of Sacramento's GHGs are from transportation.

And city staff have very clear council direction to increase the active transportation

mode share to 6% by 2030 and 12% by 2045.

And roughly we're sitting about 3% right now.

And additionally city staff have council direction to increase public transit mode share to 11%

by 2030 and maintaining that through 2045.

So the street design standards amendment will include designs that give people options

to get to their destinations by walking, biking, or taking transit.

So what can folks expect from this project?

To understand our community's values on the street design standards amendment, the project

team will be conducting a multi-pronged approach to engagement.

So starting off, we're hosting two community meetings, which is a public form to discuss

the values for this project.

And then the project team also recently hosted our first community round table, which is

comprised of selected groups of organizations representing active transportation and climate,

transit, equity, developers, and more.

And the project team will be hosting four community round tables in total.

And then also the project team developed a technical advisory committee.

And this group is comprised of internal city sections and divisions to technically inform

the opportunities for this effort.

And also we're doing a road show with interested organizations to present overview about our

efforts.

And now we're here tonight to hear from commissioners on their values and their needs for the street

design standards amendment.

So at the end of this effort, there will be an amended street design standards in the

design and procedures manual.

And the street design standards will be updated to align with city policy and community identified

values.

So to give an overview for commissioners or folks who may be tuning in virtually of how

they can participate in informed project outcomes, the first is to sign up for a newsletter.

You can sign up throughout QR code there.

And our team publishes engagement opportunities, including opportunities for the street design

standards amendment in our newsletter.

And the second is our project website.

We have a comment box for folks to leave any questions or comments.

And this goes directly to the city staff team.

And to provide an overview of this process, the above diagram is describing the process

that we're undertaking for amending the street design standards.

And we're in the beginning phase right now of identifying priorities for this amendment.

And the next steps will include developing a suite of engineering tools, identifying

preferred recommendations, and developing drafts of the standards.

And we expect a public draft review to be available roughly on fall 2025.

So that's all I have for tonight.

I want to thank you all for having me here.

I'm happy to answer any questions that commissioners may have.

We'll hear about commissioners' values and needs around the street design standards amendment.

Thank you.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have two speakers for this item.

Our first speaker is Dan Allison.

I have had plenty to say on my blog and other places about specific design standards.

So what I want to say this evening is more of a general statement.

Everything that's in the current design standards should be looked at with an eye to is this

really safe for people walking in bicycling.

And if it's not, toss it out.

Don't just pass something into the new standards because they were there and they don't look

terrible, but I think they should really be looked at toss it if it's not safe.

I would like to see the city really be innovative and leading and coming up with design standards

that are as good as those being used anywhere in the United States.

And there are plenty of good examples.

So I would encourage the city and the commissioners to look at those best practices and see those

in the final.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Matt Anderson.

Good evening commissioners, staff.

Thanks for having me.

Also District 4, Matt Anderson, the Active Transportation Fan.

I also provided a probably much too detailed comment letter online, but just kind of two

high level things I wanted to highlight on there.

Just generally designing for slower speeds, I think is really important.

Our local streets, if you read through the design standards now, some of even the local

streets should be designed to like 40 miles an hour, which is just kind of ridiculous.

And things like that just need to be reviewed.

I echo Dan's comment to we shouldn't just pass new standards in because they're existing.

I'm really excited about our neighborhood connections that are happening.

I think that's going to be fantastic, but I don't think it's way possible unless we slow

down a lot of our streets just overall.

And then one other thing I wanted to highlight is along with the kind of flexibility and

new standards, looking for ways to give staff immunity, engineering immunity for when they

try new things on safe streets, really encourage them to get out there, look to best practices

and not have to fit everything into these standards now, but be able to be flexible in the future.

I think that's really important.

And I think I would like to never hear the phrase, we can't do that because MUTCD, blah,

blah, blah, again, that's going to be my criteria for whether this is a successful

standards update or not.

Looking forward to this, thanks again for all of you and all the staff that's participating in this.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Chair, I have no more speakers.

Thank you.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Thank you.

I want to thank Matt for his comments just a moment ago.

And I want to thank Austin and Peter and Seth and Kelly and Myra who all give also similar

comments online adding to the discussion and echoing the comments about slow streets.

And I particularly want to echo what Matt just said about immunity for our traffic engineers.

I sit on the board of CalBike, California bicycle coalition.

And this weekend, Wednesday, excuse me, during our policy update that we have on Zoom,

we actually had a kind of thorough discussion about that, about the need perhaps at the state

level to provide some kind of either immunity or significant cap of liability on engineers

or cities when they're bold enough to try innovative new actions.

The status quo or some variation of that in our street design standards is not enough

in my opinion.

We need to take bold action that reflects the values of what more and more people want,

which is that our streets are slower.

Also on Tuesday, the city council approved slowing down many streets in this really great

staff report that we can send calendar.

And so it's good to see that street speed limits aren't being increased and that many streets

are being reduced in their speed limits.

But until our designs are implemented and rolled into that, we're probably going to continue

to see fast speeds.

I hear a lot from neighbors, for example, in Land Park on Land Park Drive, where you

have a street that's often 30 miles per hour, but it's so, so, so wide that people feel

more uncomfortable driving 50, 55 miles per hour through a residential neighborhood.

So as we're updating these design standards, I hope the emphasis is slower speeds by design

repeatedly that the convenience of the pedestrian, the cyclist, the vulnerable road user, takes

precedent over the ease of a motorist to travel at speeds that are lethal to everyone

around them that were bold enough to do that, even if it causes someone's travel time

to increase by, I don't know, a dozen seconds, 15, 20 seconds.

I think that those motors can live with that temporary delay.

If it means that more people feel safe and comfortable, I hope that our design standard

is basically a five-year-old child.

Could a five-year-old child use this street safely?

And if they can, then probably everybody can.

I think that's the design level comfort we need to go to.

So kudos to you all.

Thank you for inviting me as a stakeholder for your slowdown Sacramento to some of the preliminary

discussions and that whole group.

I'm very excited about it.

I'm glad this is coming forward and I'm glad we're having this discussion.

Commissioner Harris.

Yeah, you had a list.

And thank you so much for the presentation.

I know we're early in this process.

There was a list of the connecting policies that you're responding to.

And I had a question about whether you were looking at the tree canopy effort that we

heard about a couple of meetings ago.

If not, I encourage you to include whatever planning into the design standards.

It is incredibly important that we take advantage of providing shade when we're providing new

sidewalks and communities that don't have them.

So if we could do that, I would hate for us to miss the opportunity in our disadvantaged

people, economically and in canopy and in sidewalks to not get it right when we put those

in.

So I don't know how that gets done, but if that wasn't on your radar, I do ask that

you add that to your criteria.

Yeah, definitely.

So what are the goals with this effort is to make design so we can expand our urban canopy.

So we're working closely with those internal partners who are doing the Urban Forest Plan

right now, but also external community partners right now, such as Sacramento Tree Foundation,

and we're working closely with them as well.

I'm really happy to hear it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Liddaker.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks for the presentation.

I'm going to make a statement that probably just illustrates my lack of knowledge and

naive tail on the topic, but the last time I was talking with city engineers about slowing

down roads, they kept pointing to the 85th percentile rule in shaking their heads.

And I think since then, the state of California has passed some law enabling cities like ours

to not follow that rule.

And I just wanted to point that out.

And then the question I actually have is maybe Commissioner Gonzalez knows when I'm

talking about more than I do.

I don't know this law very well.

So anyway, the question I have is when was the last time the standards were updated?

The standards are from 2009.

Correct, yeah.

And Jennifer can talk a little bit more about the 80th percentile, probably AB 43 if she

wants to comment on that.

Great, thanks, because I'm Commissioner Liddaker.

So yeah, so we in California, we have to follow in order for speed limits to be enforceable,

we need to follow state guidance on how to set posted speed limits.

And so that's affectionately known as the 85th percentile.

That affectionate or not affectionate, let's take away the affection apart.

It's known as the 85th percentile.

About a couple years ago, Assemblymember Friedman sponsored a bill called AB 43, which was

then supplemented with 1938 that allowed cities under certain circumstances to further

round down when you do a speed survey.

And let's say everybody's going 37.2 miles per hour, tools under certain circumstances

to round it down more.

So one, city Sacramento already practices wherever we can, opportunities to round down.

And we are in our partners in traffic engineering are currently working with consultants to identify

what streets within the city of Sacramento are eligible for AB 43.

And then for us to figure out how to prioritize them because people in its staff,

limited financial resources to go out and make those changes.

But we are working on that.

And that's a part of the suite of things that we are doing to slow drivers down at the city.

Commissioner Moore.

Yes, thank you for the presentation.

Just echoing some of the things that we've heard tonight.

Just to Dan's point and vice-chairman Zalas, I really just hope that the city can swing for the fences with the standards that we set.

This is not a, as I understand a policy document that is required to be updated every so often.

So, you know, the next time who knows when it's going to come.

So really just want to see again those best practices put forth in there.

And then elevating that, yes, we need to get the standards right in terms of what we want

from bikeways and sidewalks and a number of other things.

But related is the neighborhood connection project and that bikeway classification.

And just really ensuring that while we have the appropriate standards for bikenades and sidewalks,

the classification for bikeways needs to match the roadway.

And the classification currently does not.

So I know those are two separate efforts, but really just want to highlight the importance of those two things coming into alignment.

Because it's not going to make sense if we're still having roadway conditions that don't demand the appropriate bikeway facilities.

Lastly, or maybe second to last, to Vice-Trigger Zalza's point,

the mobility for all ages and abilities continuously get thrown out.

And it feels, it's great to see on its principle,

but I think that there's a lot of times where it just gets thrown out because it is sensational.

And it means a lot, but what it actually takes to achieve that often gets overlooked or thrown out.

Or that's where the roadblocks come.

And so anybody is recognizing and wanting that out of this.

Like that is truly what we want to see.

Are the standards that will allow, you know, to the point made a five-year-old to actually use these facilities?

And then the last point, you know, when you're asking for our values,

it's, I don't know how it applies specifically.

I know these are city-wide, but just equity to do as much as we can to try to get our streets safer and more convenient access for our communities

who have been historically under invested and marginalized are, is a very high value for myself.

And I know others.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

This item is received in file, so no vote is required.

And we will move on to the next item.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

Item number five is the Actor Transportation Commission 2024 Annual Report.

And it looks like there is a staff presentation.

Hello, good evening.

My name is Jeff Jellisman.

I'm a transportation planner.

And I'm here to present on the 2024 Actor Transportation Annual Report.

So a quick overview of the ADC and the report process.

So the purpose of the ADC to ground ourselves as the commission is to establish, to provide advice on strategies related to walking,

bicycling and rolling in the city.

And so with that, there's seven powers and duties of the ADC.

I can, I won't go all through all of them, but for tonight, power and duty, G, annually report to and make recommendations to the city council regarding the status of walking,

bicycling and rolling in the city and activities of the commission.

So for that report, the process is shown here.

So between today and through October, so the next three meetings, this will be a standing item on the agenda so that the commission can discuss the report,

the language that is included in that, the recommendations, the highlights, et cetera, so that that can be incorporated into the report.

So with the idea that come November, the November ADC meeting, that it could be agendized as an action item to then be approved and afforded to the personnel and public employees committee.

So then that would be going to PMP, add a later date to be determined, hopefully early next year.

So real quickly, I'm just going to go through just to refresh everyone's memory of the recommendations we had from last year's report, which are the same that carried over into this report.

So the first one is the increased funding for action transition infrastructure projects.

And so we estimated around 3 million with a 10% increase over year over year.

The next one was to develop citywide safe routes school program with two planners, as well as a $650,000 year one estimate and the same recurring for the next years.

And then expand speed management program with a half senior, half associate and close to $2 million for your one, as well as the year two and recurring cost estimate.

Pilot electric bike library.

So that would come with a half time senior planner and around $1.175 million cost estimate for your one and around 500 K recurring.

And then to promote e-bike incentives.

So that would be a only one time cost of around 1 million 1.75 with the senior planner.

And then create a quick build bike ways program.

So that would be a half senior and a half associate on there along with around $1.5 million a year one and recurring cost estimate would be the same.

And then number seven was increased bike parking overall citywide with a quarter social planner planner with 225,000 year one and occurring your eight or sorry recommendation eight would be reestablished to slow and active streets program.

For up to five miles of slow streets with a half associate, half time associate planner at $850,000 for your one and recurring.

Recommendation nine would be to finalize the construction of each word policy.

The HECs requesting that policy be adopted.

So that is currently in progress.

So there is no staffing or your one or recurring costs estimates and that one.

And then the last recommendation was to develop an ATC dashboard with which would have a quarter associate planner and $175,000 your one as well as recurring cost estimate of $95,000.

So in some we had 10 recommendations with six full time employees, your one cost estimate around $10 million, $700,000.

And then recurring cost estimate of around $9 million with some of those costs expected to increase each year, namely the number one increased funding for after transportation infrastructure projects.

So for the 2024 report, I just wanted to go over some quick housekeeping agenda items.

Like you saw on the staff report, there is a different template.

It looks a little different so that template has been given to us by the city clerk.

We've been instructed to use that template to standardize those templates across all commissions.

And so that's why it looks a little different.

There's also a couple of additional contents to that report.

So most of it is more or less a one to one from the year previous within addition of the highlighted section of message from the ATC chair.

So there doesn't have to be just from the chair.

It can be from commissioners.

It even says staff in there.

But we're going to leave it up to you all to put anything in there if you want.

And then I just want to reiterate the process again.

We're kicking it off tonight in August.

We'll have September as well as October to discuss the report with the idea that in November we can approve it and send it on to PNP and P.

So with that, I just wanted to have some discussion and action items to kind of get the conversation going.

So I really like to discuss the recommendations that I went through really quickly.

Whether or not we want any new recommendations, we want to change those recommendations in the 2024 report.

Do we want to have a message from the chair or from the commission at large in that section that I highlighted.

Any highlights and accomplishments over the last year that we'd want to include in that report.

And then obviously we have to have a good group photo.

So I put a nice little place maker in there.

Maybe not tonight since we have four commissioners out.

But we'll make sure to get a good group photo.

Also, I remember from last year's report there was some requests to have better photos in general for the report.

So if we can get started on that earlier, that'd be great.

Happy to include those where possible.

That's it.

But I'll leave it on this slide so we can talk about the report.

Thank you.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have one speaker for this item.

Dan Allison.

Good evening.

Dan Allison, District 4.

Thinking back to the city budget adoption and all of this came up again.

I have every, well, not every seven of the council members spoke highly about the need for addressing traffic safety.

And then nothing happened.

And that's not your fault.

I don't know what to do about that.

But I think the commission thinking about how are we going to get through to the council members and the general manager,

the city manager about this is really important and we need to do something because that didn't happen in the budget.

I know that the city manager doesn't really have much interest in this stuff.

He doesn't think it's important that it is.

And how to get through that is a critical thing.

I agree with all ten of the items that were recommended last year.

I support all ten of them, but maybe going back with a smaller number that your top priorities might get through.

I don't know.

I don't have a solution, but I was incredibly disappointed that nothing happened at the budget.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment, Chair. I have no more speakers.

Thank you.

I hope there are commissioners who wish to speak on this topic.

Commissioner Harris.

So for those of you who aren't aware, be to remind her this is really our second year of the same plan because we spent last year finalizing the plan.

So we had the 2023 plan was finalizing and providing numbers for our 22 ask.

At the time, I was concerned that our true ask got lost in putting everything on the list.

And it was also very time consuming.

And as we have all noted, got nowhere.

So budgets are still going to be tight.

And I personally would like us and think it would be more effective if we were efficient in our time and resources and the city's time and resources and focused on the things we know matter the most.

In my opinion, that's money for projects and accountability to see those projects getting done.

That's item one and whatever item the dashboard is.

Everything else is nice.

I don't personally think any of the other items rise to funding the great work that beyond what funding the great work that the staff already does.

We have lots of plans.

We need money to implement the plans.

So I think that's the key thing.

I think that's the key thing that's going to be going up with new plans to me isn't as important for safety.

That's my opinion.

Thanks.

Commissioner Lidiker.

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks for the presentation for staff.

And thanks for Dan for your comments on that.

I don't know much about the report except for what you presented here that maybe we have 10 recommendations that we should prioritize them.

I mean, that's already done to make it easier to digest for city council because if you think getting the attention to the city council is probably a goal.

And so in that vein, I'm just wondering if and you know, I'm coming from a point of inexperience.

I just want to vote everybody else can vote a different way.

We should ask for more money this year.

And in that vein of naive today, I'm not knowing how things work and I'm only one voted can be outvoted.

Maybe in the report, we also recommend that the active transportation committee get review of certain types of city projects and permitting approval.

And what I mean by reviews that we have to pass our vote in order to be approved.

And we'll never get it, but asking is a statement.

So just to clarify, Commissioner Littaker, the recommendations that were in the last year's report were prioritized.

To my knowledge, the first one was the most was the highest priority and it went down all the way to 10.

Thank you.

Make sure that's a button to be really clear.

2020 for draft report is attached to staff report.

So you can read that with the staff report for the August.

Commissioner Gonzalez, vice chair, Gonzalez. Sorry.

That's fine. Thank you, chair.

I just want to uplift an email that we received.

Some of us received today from Commissioner Banks who could not be here tonight.

Just kind of echoing a bit of Commissioner Harris' comments about scaling back what we're asking for and pushing for funding.

Not that I absolutely agree with those statements, but I just want to give Commissioner Banks a little bit of a chance to put down the record for this meeting.

I'm sure she'll share more at the next meeting when she arrives.

I want to thank staff for bringing it forward in this month so that we can begin this work and have it finalized.

I appreciate having the plan.

I don't know if we're going to have as much more nuance to be frank.

That's our Commissioner Littaker once because we did spend a lot of time on it last year.

I think where we are is kind of where we are and if anything we're going to probably whack away at some things and highlight others rather than add more at this time.

It's just kind of the reality of the day.

But what I really want to kind of focus on is that when it was illuminated by staff and thank you for this is the process.

If we finalize this thing in November and correct me if I'm wrong, the next step will then to get it before PP&E.

That is something that is out of our control.

How that it gets agendized, how the chair decides what to call up and what not to call up, when it happens.

If it doesn't happen with enough time prior to the budget process beginning, we will miss out on a whole nother year of action.

So as much as I appreciate again very much the clear path you've set aside, I would actually push us to get this thing done sooner like in October if possible.

So we can lock it in and start really individually lobbying our council members and anyone out in the public to convince PP&E.

This is important enough to agenda in January and to get it approved by City Council within the first quarter of 2025.

That way it can permanent the budget discussion.

Last year I just don't think that we were aware of this or it was a part of our thought process.

So this thing got approved and it got shuffled to the consent calendar at City Council and 20 people still showed up to talk about it from the public.

Which was awesome and we kind of self pulled the item and I think some council members might have been a little miffed about that because they thought hey we talked about this to PP&E.

Why are we talking about this again in council but whatever people want to talk about.

This is a super important thing.

Everybody is really really on board with this down in the public.

You're seeing this gigantic mochi for people are just really frustrated because 107 people have died in Sacramento County since January 1st in vehicular related collisions and crashes.

I know Sacramento County is not our jurisdiction.

Sacramento City is but that's the only data I have thanks to the Sacramento County Corners office.

They want to see action.

So our response and our process should demonstrate the action that people want to see and we should work with that sense of urgency.

So Jeff thank you for suggesting November.

I think we should be October.

I think we need to get this thing done.

Commissioner helped.

Thank you chair.

And thank you for your work on this Jeff.

I really appreciate it.

I know the first year we did this it was quite an effort to get the report done and it's great to have staff giving us the support on this.

I don't know that our recommendations to the council really have a lot of impact especially when we're in a time of financial insecurity.

But I'm wondering if there might be some value in this year's report in reordering our recommendations to get things closer to the front that might actually happen.

So for example the quick build projects.

I would love to see that be higher priority with the hope that the council would then push for that.

Those quick build projects I think are excellent tool that we can use in a time where we just don't have a lot of money.

The other thing I'd personally like to see and I hope it's not going to be too long in the future.

But I'd really like to impress upon the council that we need to have the construction detour policy.

It's been over six years since we've proposed it.

And I see projects now where people just ignore bicyclists and pedestrians completely ignore it.

So take a look at the project that's happening at the corner of 16th or excuse me Broadway and Land Park Drive where they're putting in the new project there.

And they've done nothing for bicyclists and pedestrians.

And it was really bad when they were working on the Broadway project too because there was no way to cross the street there at all at Land Park and Broadway.

People had to walk way down the street in order to get across the road there.

But I do think there would be some value maybe in explaining to the council that even though these are not our top priorities,

these are the priorities that we believe can be done this year and urging the council to take those actions that will get those things done.

Thank you. Commissioner Littaker.

Thank you chair. I just wanted to clarify that my statement about asking for more money didn't mean more projects.

I mean maybe asking for money for even a smaller number of projects.

So part of getting the attention of city council is to put a big number out there and sometimes that's what gets people's attention more than anything else to dance point.

So you get their attention. So it's one everything with that.

Commissioner Moore.

It's just a clarifying question from not being familiar with this process.

So is the work that gets done to finalize this between the commission and the staff such that we we simply discussed this as we are in these meetings between now and when it gets approved and then staff goes forward and puts the report together based on what the conversation is here.

Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. So due to the commission no longer having subcommittees, we have to do it all kind of in the open at commission.

So it can even go from like recommendations like we're talking now in terms of like the priorities and stuff like that down to grammar and specific sentences and stuff like that.

And is this the first year without the subcommittees?

No, I believe the subcommittees went away in 2022 last year.

Okay, thank you. So wrapping my head around kind of recommendations and password. Appreciate it.

So Commissioner Moore just to clarify this. So what we're hoping to hear tonight and in September, October, maybe in November depending on how you all want to move forward, is like we want to hear the substance to say, okay, because we have to take what you say tonight.

And it's not a voting item. So we have to surmise the intention of the broad commission together to make changes to what Jeff proposed today.

And so make those edits without it being a voting item because you're going to vote on it when we take it forward. So it's nuance.

So we want to hear a general consensus from the commissioners without a vote. Just general consensus of like, yes, we want to prioritize. Yes, we want to only have three or we want to do this or that.

So that Jeff can then revise come back in September with a revised document to then get your feedback on.

And that's what the process to go for a vote to take it to council.

Commissioner helped.

I wanted to add to what I said before. I do think that increased funding for active transportation infrastructure projects should always be number one.

There is no doubt that the city council needs to do that. But because of what I said before, I would love to see quick build programs being number two.

I would love to see the detour policy be number three. And that we would add an explanation to the city council that even though these might not be in all objectivity, the highest priorities, these are the priorities that are most likely to get done.

So let's ask the council to give us the support to get at least those things done.

And then reprioritize the others to make sure that we're giving the council the opportunity to take on those projects that are more likely to get done in 2025, 26.

I mean, the format of the report is entirely up to you all as well. So choosing the 10 recommendations in a prioritized list is one way to look at it. You could also think about maybe long term, short term or something like that to get at what you were talking about.

Just thought.

That's also a good idea to maybe another way to approach it. Because a lot of these things for now, we're not going to be short term.

Commissioner Harris.

I wanted to add one thing that is new on top of the not having subcommittees is now we have more time limitations on the duration of these meetings. So I want us all to be very cognizant that this decision.

Commissioner, sorry, vice chair, it's all this point.

We need to be fast whether it's fast, October, fast or fast, November, we're talking about we're getting through these things in a half an hour in every sitting.

We have to be looking at. So I know you're hearing my frustrations, I'm acknowledging it. We spent a lot of time expanding the pot.

I hear some willingness. I'm very excited. Here's moments to narrow our focus. And I if anyone doesn't feel we can narrow our focus. I'd like to hear it now.

Then we just have to narrow our focus. If we're not going to narrow our focus, then let's figure out another approach forward. But we need to make that decision very quickly and stick to it.

And I understand we have limited people. I'm sorry. I feel very strongly that we make the decision now whether we're limiting or not limiting.

And the other commissioners are going to need to work within that parameters. If you feel differently about that, fine too. But we need to make these decisions very quickly on how we're going to approach this.

I will also say I'm fine with all of your things. I don't actually I think those are my top priorities along with the dashboards.

But those they don't have to be I'm just for narrowing the scope.

Commissioner Littaker.

Thanks here. Okay. Well, then I'll try me on some of these issues. I think we should narrow the scope.

That doesn't mean we ask for less money. It's possible. And I'm just going to throw this out. Maybe we have we don't just have one list of priorities.

We have two different lists. We have the priorities for the act of transportation and what we feel and then we have the priorities that we think the city council should act on first because they're less expensive and less long term.

So I just want to throw out the idea of having more than one criteria and have a whole section. Here's our criteria according to the act of transportation. Here's the whole criteria.

You know, here's our recommendations in terms of for city councils actions in short term. So more than one criteria, more than one prioritization list.

I'm also in support of Commissioner Harris is kind of reducing some of these items. It does seem a little more maybe politically viable. It also seems like the weight of some of these such as the you know, the funding, which I think everyone's echoing is a priority.

It might be challenging when we get past that I personally think the city white say threats to school program is something that should remain as a high priority. But I am in favor of reducing these. Some of these like the increased bike parking right like the city is already doing some parking reform that is going to increase bike parking.

We don't necessarily need to add a quarter of a million dollars maybe to to that effort if it's going to delete the power of where that money can go.

I think that is incredibly important. It's valuable. I think we've heard from a number of times on opportunities that quick build is just going to be a very challenging objective to hit. It's not saying that we shouldn't list it. But I think in this list, again, I didn't contribute to all the effort and energy that was put into it. And I want to respect the amount of time and thought that everybody did put into it.

There seems that some things that we can maybe trim to get city council to I think maybe pay attention to this little more and to me maybe reduce the either maintain or reduce the number to make that a little more feasible as well.

Vice chair Gonzales.

I want to acknowledge commissioner Harris's comments about people not being here tonight and as they have the need to move on. No one who's not here tonight knew that a lot of people were not here tonight and they expected us to do the business that we have to do tonight.

So just because there are as many people that can be absent tonight, we still do have a quorum and we have business conduct. I've missed two meetings in the last year and I never thought that you all would wait for me to get back to do the business.

I don't agree that we need to get rid of anything so which I'm sorry. I actually think that everything that was in the report was a compromise and lengthy discussion by representatives from across the city from this commission.

I think everything is in there for a reason, but I do agree that we should prioritize it and rather than prioritize it as into one two or three, I would recommend that we just take the 10 things we have and maybe add an asterisk to this one's really easy and doable now.

Regardless of the budget condition or what money we do or don't have and just say like here's all these things they're all still important. They're all still things we want.

That way even though people aren't here tonight, we can still say these are recommendations that were decided by a body that represents everybody from across the city.

We can move forward and we can acknowledge it's a tough time. We know it. Don't ignore us because we have come up with recommendations that can be implemented now.

Commissioner Hock.

Following up on the vice chair's comments, whether tonight or at a future meeting, could we get staff's recommendations about what they think are more likely to be accomplished short term?

Because there may be pots of money from which we could draw that we may not know about.

But I think where we're going is I think short term long term is where we have to look at this if we're going to make any impact at all before the city council.

Commissioner Hock to answer your question about whether staff can make a recommendation of whether things can be done short term or there are other pots of funding. There are no other pots of funding.

So the funding that we have available to us at the staff level has been allocated. And so if we ultimately it's not staff's decision to reallocate that funding, that is a city manager and council level decision.

So I don't think that we could answer that question. I think what staff would like to hear is what is your highest priority?

And we've already provided those cost estimates to you from last year. There might be slightly changed now, but let's just go with what we have of those. What is your prior?

What would you like to see in the lesson if you want to prioritize them? We are happy to. Ultimately, this is your report. And we are mere scribes to bring it forward.

Commissioner Moore.

Yes, I share it. Can you elaborate on some of these that you think are the quick hit the ground running that city council absolutely can adopt?

Because I think, again, not having been a part of that discussion a lot of the times, I don't think that the majority of city council are going to see these and not think that their priority or effective may be in reducing traffic fatalities or injuries.

Commissioner Moore, how dare you use my own words against me?

I would say the construction detour policy is almost there. I would say the bike parking doesn't seem like a huge amount of money.

But on that, I would lean on the rest of the commissioners to make their recommendations. I wouldn't want to monopolize that discussion.

Oh, and the dashboard. I'm sorry. The dashboard should happen. It needs to happen. We need to know where we are. We want to know where we want to go.

We also currently have an electric e-bike library. I think it's been put on hold due to the fire at the library, but that's just another one.

And had nothing to do with the bike.

Oh, may I speak?

Oh, it's my understanding that the e-bike lending at colonial heights has been suspended, not due to the fire, but rather due to theft.

So there are no e-bikes there. I don't think they were a part of the fire. I think they've all been in storage and they're reviewing how to reorganize this project to avoid loss.

I think they're correct.

And while I have the floor, I would demote that actually as something that can come later, maybe another year, but not right now.

The city for the next year is probably going to work out, I hope, what's going on at colonial heights are with the e-bikes that they have.

And oops, oh shoot, I lost it.

I agree that like the bike parking could come down, it seems like we're working on that.

The finalize the construction, D-tour policy. I essentially agree with everything you guys have said.

I do think that the Quick Build bike waste program should be elevated and and demoted for the e-bike library.

But the rest I'm kind of in. And I hate to narrow our focus tonight and have it set in stone when so many people aren't here.

So while I agree that it should be done, I don't personally feel comfortable with us taking that lead at this moment.

Chair Herdell, if I'm to clarify, because we are going to be making revisions based on comments tonight.

Are my hearing that you're asking us not to make revisions based on that?

No, no, no. Commissioner Harris, I believe, said that tonight we can narrow our focus based on the opinions of the people who are here this evening.

And I assume narrowing means removing items or I assume if we're narrowing our focus.

So.

Did I answer your question?

Well, I think that we are going to be hearing a lot of input.

I think Jeff and I are going to collaborate on the comments that we hear tonight and then come back to you.

And maybe we will summarize before we wrap up this evening of what we hear in the general direction for which staff are going to take to bring.

Because we literally have like a week and a half to write up the new report and the staff report to go in our approval system.

So we'll need to move quickly to make those edits for the next meeting in September.

So we'll probably think Jeff, you want to summarize like after we're done with the discussion of where we think we're going.

Commissioner Harris.

So I suggested that we decide whether we were open to reducing items.

If we were open to reducing items, we'd have to make that decision before we would decide whether we're actually going to take some items off.

I just want to be clear that the counterpoint to that is really right and add more new items, which is a third option.

So there's keep everything on the list. There's reduce the existing list.

And then there's the revise the list to add create new things, reprioritize, reimagine things, right, which is another piece.

So that was my suggestion.

I will say we've heard a lot of I'm hearing, repeating back a lot of consensus around safety projects.

The being the highest priority. We had the same thing brought up last time.

If we are unwilling to completely remove this list hearing the chair and the vice chairs, feeling that there may not be.

In impetus at this time to remove or anything from this list, I would suggest that we create a list of items for safety.

And then take items such as the electric and we're using these very broadly.

There's an argument who made that all of these things would have resulted in a safer world.

A lot of street safety. The electric bike library, the e-bike incentives, and the bike parking are not and the dashboard are not directly safety items.

I would hate to lose the dashboard because it's a huge priority for me, but.

I would suggest that we make a prioritize safety list because we put safety at the top.

We will get more notice. And if we have other suggestions, we put it somewhere else.

And maybe there's other things that need to move off into a non safety item that I'm not thinking about.

That would be my suggestion. And then we could have two lists with our prioritize safety list first.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ledaker.

Thank you, chair.

I wanted to agree with the safety prioritization.

I also do agree we need to focus, but I'm totally against taking things off the list.

I think focus is just a packaging exercise.

You know, these three are the top with these five with respect to what can be done now.

There's these three with respect to what we want.

There's these three packaging, not taking things off the list.

That said, I really don't like the e-bike library idea at all.

I've seen them come and go over decades and they never work.

They're always a complete disaster as is the program currently.

There's always something or whether it's just not.

It's a great idea that just doesn't work.

There's just a bunch of money that gets wasted and note a little bit of social benefit.

It's very hard to maintain the bike.

It's very hard. You have to have personnel that constantly babysit these.

I'm going to go on about that.

Also, the e-bike incentive is, you know, the state has a program.

I mean, it's a little difficult to qualify for it admittedly.

And it's pretty much low income, but there is a program out there.

Maybe we do some education about that program instead.

And I like the idea of having some new items because we can't just have the same thing every year.

And I think that the idea of repackaging and having highlighting what can be quick,

and done quickly now for practically no money, is new.

That adds some newness to the report.

Those are my comments.

Commissioner Moore.

I just want the record to show that before you spoke, I crossed off e-bike library, e-bike incentives, and increased bike parking.

I don't know if we're going to come to consensus on shortening.

I'm fully in favor of both shortening and removing those three.

Again, as noted, partially ineffective to have been said.

Efforts are already underway. Price tag.

I do feel like earlier, the comment around the dashboard, not costing a lot, and the value that it adds.

I would be okay with keeping that.

It's also a big priority, maybe, for some commissioners.

So in favor of that.

I also am a big fan of the safety aspect.

I think what's going to maybe have the most sway is the safety lens.

It's not necessarily a mode chair.

Like has been said, a lot of these tangentially are related to safety, but some of these are also maybe more in line with kind of mode chair improvements.

So safety, I think, is kind of the winning argument and rhetoric that might get us some traction with these.

So with that, the remaining, what is that, six items, not including the dashboard, I think are within that safety realm.

Thank you.

Commissioner Harris, I totally agree with you on the safety issues.

In fact, it's been suggested, not by another commissioner, Deb Banks.

It that our overarching goals should be, I mean, what do we want?

We want to save lives and prevent injury.

And if our overarching goal is to make our city safer than any project that creates a safer environment for bicyclists and pedestrians should be number one.

Commissioner Harris, sorry.

I'm just going to ask one thing and it's totally unenforceable, but I'd like agreement from everybody that we, that the next meeting in September will be the only opportunity to add anything new to the list.

It could be revised and reworked, but whether they're here or not, no new ideas past next meeting.

Can we agree to that?

Yes.

Yes.

I didn't hear anyone actually suggest a new project, or did I miss something?

None of us suggested, oh, I'm sorry.

Well, I suggested we ask for voting authority on projects in the city.

Oh.

I still think we should do that.

But that's just my opinion.

Does that support?

We're not going to give it to us, but you ask for it, and it's a statement.

That's all I'm saying.

And it's a new thing.

Thank you.

Would you like to, I, oh, okay, I still have a commissioner, a litigar up on this.

You're okay.

Are we ready for a summary of from staff?

Do you want to do it?

Yeah, yeah, I'm happy to jump into it.

Safety ring out quite a bit.

And there's still, it still sounds like it's undecided whether or not we're going to keep the list the way it is in terms of the number of projects, or we will increase it or not.

And we're going to move that to September.

That's what I heard overall.

There were folks were open to maybe repackaging the list instead of doing like a prioritized one through 10.

Maybe theming it or packaging it like commissioner, like I said, in terms of safety, which was a really important one that got brought up multiple times.

And everything else.

There was some talk around also, yeah, like what commissioner Harris brought up in terms of either keeping everything reducing something or rising it.

That's kind of like a ground rule that we needed to address before we could even move forward with the conversation.

Again, that sounded like we were going to push that September is from what I heard.

And working sounded like that one was going to get pushed down in the prioritization as well as the eBike library lending library as well as the eBike incentives.

I heard that from multiple commissioners.

And then thinking about a short long term approach as well to the different recommendations on whether or not some are more implementable in the near term as opposed to long term or recurring costs that might be less palatable to council members.

That was the last thing that big item that I heard.

Was there anything that I might have missed in that summary?

Oh, voting authority on city projects.

Clarification.

Would that be, obviously, have to be projects there within the purview of the act of transition.

So yeah, transportation projects.

And voting authority approves.

You need approval from this council for it to move forward in order to go to city council for adoption.

Yeah.

For example, to my knowledge that's the current route that project most projects that are under the purview of the act of transition go through.

Sorry to interrupt you shake my head, Jeff.

So this body has no authority is advisory only.

Whereas there's only one commission in the city of Sacramento that has any authority that's planning and design commission.

And they have been bestowed powers to approve or not approve projects.

All of the other boards and commissions and there are lots of course office can tell us how many lots and lots of commissions do not their advisory only.

So this commission is advisory only and council will ask did the HTC support this or not support this haven't forbid we go and didn't support something I can't imagine that we would get approval from city council.

But technically you are advisory only.

So it sounds like they're asking to have council is still powers on this commission.

Thank you.

Sorry, I'm sorry.

Vice chair can solve this.

Thank you.

I would just.

With all due respect.

Maybe do the quickest research to see if any city does that.

If any city's active transportation commission is a decision making body rather than advisory body.

I don't know that any are.

But if there are maybe we could model ourselves after that.

I think it's a good idea.

But again knowing our boundaries as being advisory and knowing that we just had a code update that we can dig into some of our authority or directive.

We have no authority.

I don't know that we're going to go through it again in the near future.

Are we.

There were another discussion items.

I don't know if folks have the appetite to dig into those tonight.

But there is just the overall language in the report.

So there is the opportunity to have a message from the chair or the commission.

So the preamble to the recommendations and the current report.

Could be could suffice for the message from the chair of the commission or it could stay in its current form right now that's up to you all.

But I just wanted to put that out there.

And if I may just may add to that.

If it's from the commission, you have to wordsmith it together in the commission meeting.

I don't mind. I mean, I like the idea. I think of a message from the chair.

But I sure don't want to write it all by myself.

So I input is essential.

You can't have input. You'll be breaking the brown act.

What so input here here. That's what I mean.

Yeah.

So what I suggest is that you propose a if you want to include one.

You need to get Jeff a draft in a week and a half so we can include it in our staff report.

And then the commission can then respond to that next month.

I can't do that. I'm on vacation for two weeks.

Well, then I don't think we'll be able to do a.

A message from the chair.

Unless maybe the vice chair would like to do it.

Oh.

Thank you, vice chair.

Thank you. Thank you.

And why does it need to be done in the next two weeks?

I guess.

We have a process for our staff report.

So we need to bring it back to commission in September for your consideration.

Our staff reports go through a complex routing process that includes.

So Jeff will prepare it. I review it.

My boss reviews it. My boss's boss reviews it.

Goes to the city attorney's office. It goes to the clerk's office.

It goes to I don't know a whole bunch of folks.

I can't remember who everybody is on the routing list.

But it usually takes a number of weeks for the routing process.

So in order for us to be able to submit it in time for publishing for next month,

generally the due date is the last week of the month of the end of August.

So for the September meeting.

Could we not do it for the October meeting?

You could. We're just postponing and expanding the process, the timeline.

And I heard that folks want to accelerate the timeline.

And oftentimes our conversations are nuanced.

And we don't always get too early on to on the first conversation.

So having it in September would be advantageous.

I mean, I'm in favor of having a message from the chair.

And I would I'd be fine with doing it in October.

And if the chair just if it's part of the agenda packet,

the chair circulates her proposed message.

And we can all comment on it at that meeting.

But the chair makes the final decision on what she does or doesn't want in it.

I'm fine with that.

I will defer to, of course, the commission.

This is your report.

My experience the last number of years doing these reports is that it's not easy to reach consensus on the language.

And often takes a long time.

But I'll defer to the chair.

You all will need to vote.

So if there's somebody who's not comfortable with the language that the chair puts together,

you don't have enough votes to move forward.

That means that the court has a little bit more.

I'd be happy to give the chair the discretion to accept what she doesn't doesn't want.

There are 10 other commissioners though.

So we just want to make sure we can move this forward.

Okay.

I'm assuming that I'm deferring to the vice chair who's been willing to.

Although you said chair.

Okay.

And vice chair gunsles.

I would be offering to write the opening letter on behalf of the commission.

And I would assume that the commission would sign it instead of the chair.

Like I would inside it.

The letter would not be from the vice chair.

I'm willing to draft a letter, have it done within eight working days.

And then that would be the draft letter that the commission would do.

It would be from all of us.

I'm fine with that too.

Yeah.

No.

So just to give you a deadline.

I'm sorry, chair.

It's always if you can get to me by the 30th, that would be sufficient time for me to incorporate that into the staff report.

Before I call on vice on commission or litigar, it is now 712.

If we cannot finish in the next 15 minutes, we need to do a motion and extend the meeting for another hour.

I think of caution we should extend the meeting for an hour if I can get a motion.

Hopefully we won't meet it.

Make the motion.

Yeah, I have a.

We need to finish this.

We need we have commissioner comments and input and then from the members of the public.

I think I heard a motion and I'll second.

Thank you.

We have a motion from vice chair Gonzales and a second from commissioner help to extend the meeting for an hour if the clerk would call the roll.

Thank you chair commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Harris.

May.

I'm sorry, was that a no?

Thank you.

Commissioner Gibson.

Commissioner do a westburg absent commissioner litigar.

May.

Vice chair Gonzales.

Aye.

Commissioner hot.

With the understanding that we don't really need the whole hour, I.

Aye.

Commissioner more.

Aye.

Sorry.

Commissioner Rasmus absent commissioner bank absent chair hold out.

Aye.

Thank you motion passes.

Okay commissioner litigar.

Okay, so.

I agree that asking for any kind of authorities absolutely ridiculous is never going to happen, but I'm just trying to appeal to Dan's comments, which is that we're not getting the attention of city council.

And sometimes something that could be picked up by the SAG B could make a big deal.

I'm just putting a little request that I imagine something like because I'm just imagining some kind of a paragraph statement that says, you know, to be consistent with the city plan and all these other city documents that are pro active transportation and community and safety and all these projects that are safety oriented.

We recommend that this active transportation commission be given, you know, some description of authority.

Something like that.

It's just an attention.

Graver.

That's it.

Okay.

There are no more speakers.

Jeff and.

Are you good?

Okay.

This item is receiving file, so no vote at this and we'll move on to the next item.

The next item is member comments ideas and questions.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak?

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Thank you.

I'll attempt to be brief.

I just want to mention that on Tuesday when the speed limit resolution.

I was discussed during the city council meeting.

I came and gave a supportive statement during public comment and I also requested the city considered tactical urbanism as a policy to complement speed limit reduction because while the speed limit reduction itself is a.

We believe this is not necessarily a trusted background.

We have a model city that's sharply up fantastic.

I'm not sure whether we're going to do it that much more difficult matter.

The bubbling schonena, cinco million ponyんだ at our point we've done.

We're going to be

And I bring it up because from this very seat, Council Member Vellisweila asked for an update

from city staff concerning taxidual urbanism and quick build policy or implementation

during our recommendations that were presented at City Council. This was a discussion that came up,

Council Member Mai Vang from over there that asked about maybe a toolkit or suite of options

and directed staff to respond at some point. So an update was requested during consent.

And David Edselarn came up and said that the city is now in discussions with three consultants

to talk about taxicual urbanism and find paths forwards with three different types of

costs associated and three different definitions about what taxicual urbanism is.

And on one hand, that's very reassuring because that's progress. On the other hand,

like I've never heard about that before. I was really shocked to hear that we actually have made

so much progress and that was the first time I heard about it. And to echo Dan's comments

earlier, our city manager said, I've yet to be briefed about taxicual urbanism, which is

upsetting. Quite frankly, hundreds of people died in Sacramento County since the first of the year.

And taxicual urbanism is a practice that's been implemented in other municipalities,

misinterceptualities that have reached their vision zero goals. So I just wanted to update the

commission that it sounds like the city of Sacramento is beginning to look at taxicual urbanism

as something that they will implement. And we move forward and I'd love to hear more updates

if possible before this commission on that because it's something we've been asking for.

I think this is the first body where we want to hear more about these three consultants that

have been talked to and what it is that they are proposing or what it is our fact finding

mission is. Next Wednesday, slow down Sacramento will host its second tactical urbanism policy

work group meeting where I'll be bringing this up to those people who were in attendance. We had

one about a month ago with about 30 people in attendance, all of different skill sets and practices

and ideas and energies. I'm very, it was very heartening meeting. If you want to know more about

that and you want to attend, just email slowdownsacromania.gmail.com. You'll reach me and I'll be happy

to send you an invite to the Zoom meeting. I'll be next Wednesday. I believe it's at six o'clock.

Thank you. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the public comments?

This matters not on the agenda. This is our last item. Thank you chair. I have no speakers for this item.

Okay. Thank you. This concludes today's agenda. Thank you everyone for your participation.

The meeting is adjourned.